Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They're not reading the texts, are they? Aren't they just asking for the identification of those in the area, based on cell phone pings?
The article refers to "tracking customers" and their "location history".
The chain of information searched and viewed in order to get a positive ID on an individual violates CPNI (password protected information, NOT publicly available / plain view).
You're getting the coordinates of subscribers via A-GPS, which triangulates a user's position based on IMEI and SIM, which references phone number and IP address at the carrier level (or user name in the case of Google), which references an account with a name, address, along with call records (or emails and Hangouts messages in the case of Google).
To even positively identify the guy they had to get all the way into the account records to see the subscriber name. PD violated constitutional rights of 19 subscribers (that we know of, each multiple times) and bypassed standard of proof required for the warrant obtained.
Google acted negligently and compromised CPNI by complying with an illegal order, which was not enforceable. Each officer and the judge granting the warrant should be fired and each charged with all 19 counts of perjury.
All subject to interpretation, too many less solid cases citing "illegal search and seizure" this is sure to get an eye roll at first glance, but once you dig into the details you'd see there is some egregious falsification necessary to get access that broad to mines of protected customer information.
Short of Google committing some sort of federal crimes involving its customers' data, this electronic equivalent of a SWAT team breaking down doors and physically taking possession of servers did not fit the crime they were investigating.
They probably cited exigent circumstances, which I believe is a provision that should be done away with altogether. It guts basically anything the 4th amendment claims to protect.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 18 days ago)
35,669 posts, read 18,034,145 times
Reputation: 50718
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddm2k
The chain of information searched and viewed in order to get a positive ID on an individual violates CPNI (password protected information, NOT publicly available / plain view).
You're getting the coordinates of subscribers via A-GPS, which triangulates a user's position based on IMEI and SIM, which references phone number and IP address at the carrier level (or user name in the case of Google), which references an account with a name, address, along with call records (or emails and Hangouts messages in the case of Google).
To even positively identify the guy they had to get all the way into the account records to see the subscriber name. PD violated constitutional rights of 19 subscribers (that we know of, each multiple times) and bypassed standard of proof required for the warrant obtained.
Google acted negligently and compromised CPNI by complying with an illegal order, which was not enforceable. Each officer and the judge granting the warrant should be fired and each charged with all 19 counts of perjury.
All subject to interpretation, too many less solid cases citing "illegal search and seizure" this is sure to get an eye roll at first glance, but once you dig into the details you'd see there is some egregious falsification necessary to get access that broad to mines of protected customer information.
Short of Google committing some sort of federal crimes involving its customers' data, this electronic equivalent of a SWAT team breaking down doors and physically taking possession of servers did not fit the crime they were investigating.
They probably cited exigent circumstances, which I believe is a provision that should be done away with altogether. It guts basically anything the 4th amendment claims to protect.
No.
It's the equivalent of video cameras recording license plates. There is NO unreasonable search and seizure. As I understand it, there is no data given to LE in this case except the identity of the person whose phone was in the area.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 18 days ago)
35,669 posts, read 18,034,145 times
Reputation: 50718
So awhile back there was a woman who was in a nursing home, young woman, in a semicomatose state.
She became pregnant, and a search warrant for DNA was issued for all the males who worked at the facility. I believe there were about 20.
If THAT is constitutional, and doesn't violate the 4th amendment against unreasonable search and seizure, this is a shoe-in. In this case, they're not searching and seizing anything.
They're looking through pings to see who all the pool of suspects is, determined by who was in the area. (And then, I'd guess, running their licenses to see their photos and crime records).
Using technology to determine, after the fact, who was in the area and sifting through those identities, of those determined to be present, to find the perp.
Using an identifying "code" to determine who was present. In the one case, a license plate that can be traced to a car owner, and in the other case, a phone number that can be traced to the owner.
It's the same thing.
It feels different to you because you've grown used to the technology being videotaped, and that video being watched by LE after a crime, and you're used to having a code on your car that can identify you You're not used to the idea that LE can find out who was in the area by a different code - a phone at the scene of the crime.
License plates, required to legally operate vehicles on public roads, which are policed by officers whose job may regularly involve traffic enforcement, provides them access to the plate registry so that they may get relevant information concerning the vehicle they have stopped. Traffic stops require reasonable suspicion. Searches require probable cause. Drivers have provided their information to the DMV in order to legally drive. This relationship is clear and directly related to an officer's duties.
(By the way, automatic plate readers are a completely different story, don't get me started) Despite not requiring RS to run a plate, the free access puts too much information available for irresponsible use: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/police-...sonal-gain-ap/
Cell phones, the accounts, or any accounts for apps you may download are not to be combed through frivolously. Until you understand in this case they used solely an arbitrarily chosen location as the scope of their search, which includes drivers at nearby traffic lights that never exited their cars and probably had no idea what just happened, I'll be praying for you.
---
If someone holds up a kiosk at the mall, may authorities rightfully peruse the location data of THOUSANDS of users inaccurately reported because they're inside an enormous structure with a metal skeleton and concrete walls? You're insane.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 18 days ago)
35,669 posts, read 18,034,145 times
Reputation: 50718
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddm2k
License plates, required to legally operate vehicles on public roads, which are policed by officers whose job may regularly involve traffic enforcement, provides them access to the plate registry so that they may get relevant information concerning the vehicle they have stopped. Traffic stops require reasonable suspicion. Searches require probable cause. Drivers have provided their information to the DMV in order to legally drive. This relationship is clear and directly related to an officer's duties.
(By the way, automatic plate readers are a completely different story, don't get me started) Despite not requiring RS to run a plate, the free access puts too much information available for irresponsible use: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/police-...sonal-gain-ap/
Cell phones, the accounts, or any accounts for apps you may download are not to be combed through frivolously. Until you understand in this case they used solely an arbitrarily chosen location as the scope of their search, which includes drivers at nearby traffic lights that never exited their cars and probably had no idea what just happened, I'll be praying for you.
---
If someone holds up a kiosk at the mall, may authorities rightfully peruse the location data of THOUSANDS of users inaccurately reported because they're inside an enormous structure with a metal skeleton and concrete walls? You're insane.
You're the one who came up with that scenario, not me. I'm not the "insane" one here.
While the technology of mobile phones is comparatively recent, there's nothing in this case that is particularly original in principle.
Imagine, a bank robbery 40 years ago. A witness states that just prior to the robbery, he saw the suspect making a call from a bank of pay phones. Which of the phones in the bank? The witness cannot say. There were other people using some of he other phones in the bank. So the local police get a warrant for Northwestern Bell and track all the calls. The only difference was that by that time, land-line technology was old and not so 'scary'.
The issue with others inevitably being caught up in this investigation isn't groundbreaking, either. If a witness gets a partial on a plate number, anyone of the hundreds or even thousands of people that share that partial might get a look after law enforcement gets the list of such people from the DMV. If some guy wearing a top hat robs a bank, and you happen to be strolling down the street in a top hat, you'll probably have to provide an alibi.
People seem to be freaking out over the technology being investigated, and ignoring the underlying principles here - which don't seem to be anything new.
Actually, they begin to fill out a SUBPOENA, realize they can't even fill out half of the required specifics, submit it anyway, and and it gets rejected.
Also, on the top hat situation, you say nothing until you get a lawyer. Innocent people have been convicted on statements they've made in an effort to clear their name. DA doesn't want the guy who did it. He just wants somebody who plausibly could have done it to tie up loose ends and close the case.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin
That is exactly what this is, trading liberty for temporary safety. Yeah the cops got one bank robber. But the criminals will catch on and stop using this technology, or more than likely they will use stolen or burner phones that can't be traced to them. But by that time the Fourth and Fifth Amendments will be toast, and the cops will be going through our personal data at will. The crime rate will stay the same, but our freedom will go down the toilet.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
